Danish: "Han hjælpes af sine forældre" is a grammatically correct passive form; it sounds quite formal to my ear, (maybe even slightly dated). The more common and colloquial way to say this would be "han bliver hjulpetaf sine forældre" (please note the irregular past participle)

This question may be less simple than it seems. In the Norwegian case, I agree with Mosletha that both alternatives are correct, and that both are used. But I am not so sure if both alternatives are common. Bicontinental's objections to "hjælpes" in Danish may apply to Norway as well.

This may depend on the context, as Johan says on the Swedish case. If we are talking about the amount of help he gets from somebody, I would prefer "Han blir hjulpet mye av foreldrene sine" to "Han hjelpes mye ...". But the simplest (and maybe the most used) way to express this in Norwegian would be to drop the passive form, and write "Han får mye hjelp av ..."

If "He is helped a lot" means that he finds something useful, neither of the alternatives sound quite right. In that case, we might say, for example, "Han er godt hjulpet av...", "Han har stor nytte av...", or that something "er til stor hjelp for ham".

This may depend on the context, as Johan says on the Swedish case. If we are talking about the amount of help he gets from somebody, I would prefer "Han blir hjulpet mye av foreldrene sine" to "Han hjelpes mye ...". But the simplest (and maybe the most used) way to express this in Norwegian would be to drop the passive form, and write "Han får mye hjelp av ..."

Click to expand...

Actually that's what I have in mind. I understand that the active voice is more common in such a sentence. But when a passive is used , can you say that the analytic form with the auxiliary bli is rather preferred to the passive marker -s ?

Actually that's what I have in mind. I understand that the active voice is more common in such a sentence. But when a passive is used , can you say that the analytic form with the auxiliary bli is rather preferred to the passive marker -s ?

Click to expand...

I don't have any statistical figures to support this, but my guess is that the synthetic passive is preferred if a modal (skulle, måtte, kunne, ville, burde) is involved. The analytic passive is preferred elsewhere. Thus, "han blir hjulpet mye" is probably preferred to "han hjelpes mye".

I also think that the synthetic passive is preferred (or even obligatory) when the idea of a specific agent is somewhat unnatural. These cases would be very similar to French passive constructions with se.

I don't have any statistical figures to support this, but my guess is that the synthetic passive is preferred if a modal (skulle, måtte, kunne, ville, burde) is involved. The analytic passive is preferred elsewhere. Thus, "han blir hjulpet mye" is probably preferred to "han hjelpes mye".

Click to expand...

I agree. Thanks Myšlenka, you expressed this more clearly than I would have done.